Legal Opinion

Armour Fertilizer Works v. Hyman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 25, 1922No. 10966PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Marion.

Action for balance of $2,964.53, and interest and attorney’s fees, alleged to be due the plaintiff by the defendant on a promissory note given by the defendant to Tuscarora Fertilizer Company on account of the purchase of fertilizers in the year 1917, and subsequently transferred and assigned to the plaintiff for value. The defendant by his answer admitted the execution of the note and the unpaid balance thereof, and set up a counterclaim thereto for the sum of $1,595.77, due to him on account of discount, or commissions, on said…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fairly v. Wappoo MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
  2. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. MooreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
  3. Coates & Sons v. EarlySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1896
  4. Arthur v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
  5. Barrett & Co. v. StillSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. J.B. Colt Company v. BrittSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  2. Wilson v. LandstromCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
  3. Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
  4. Marston v. RiversSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  5. Devore v. Piedmont Insurance CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API